Download - New York City Comprehensive Commercial Waste Management ... · New York City Comprehensive Commercial Waste Management Study Preliminary Report – June 2002 1 I. Introduction New

New York City Comprehensive Commercial Waste Management Study

Preliminary Report

June 2002

Prepared by the New York City Department of Sanitation jointly with Urbitran Associates, Inc.

New York City Comprehensive Commercial Waste Management StudyPreliminary Report – June 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Summary of Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

III. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

A. Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6B. Data Evaluation and Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

IV. Solid Waste Transfer Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

A. Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9B. Permitting and Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

V. Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A. New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Tables 1-4; Figures 1a-4) . . . . 11B. New York City Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream (Tables 5-6;

Figures 5-6c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19C. New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed)

Waste Stream (Tables 7-8; Figures 7-8c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23D. Constituents of New York City Total Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Putrescible Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Non-putrescible Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Recycling and Fill Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess); Origins and Final Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Table 2: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess); Origins and Intermediate Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Table 3: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (as Reported by Transfer Stations); Origins and Final Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 4: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Excess); Origins and Final Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Table 5: New York City Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream; Origins and Intermediate Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Table 6: New York City Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream; Origins and Final Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Table 7: New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream; Origins and Intermediate Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Table 8: New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream; Origins and Final Destinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream Flow Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 1a: Origins and Final Destinations of Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 1b: Origins of Commercial Waste (Including Excess) by Type of Waste . . . . . . . . 15Figure 1c: Final Destinations of Commercial Waste (Including Excess) by Type of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Figure 2: Origins and Intermediate Destinations of Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Figure 3: Origins and Final Destinations of New York City Commercial Waste Stream (as Reported by Transfer Stations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 4: Origins and Final Destinations of New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Excess) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 5: Origins and Intermediate Destinations of Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Figure 6a: Origins and Final Destinations of Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Figure 6b: Origins of Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste by Type of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . 31Figure 6c: Final Destinations of Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste by Type of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32


LIST OF FIGURES (continued)

Figure 7: Origins and Intermediate Destinations of New York City Combined Commercial andResidential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 8a: Origins and Final Destinations of New York City Combined Commercial andResidential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Figure 8b: Origins of Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste by Typeof Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Figure 8c: Final Destinations of Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed)Waste by Type of Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Commercial Waste Study Survey FormAppendix B: Transfer Station Profiles and Borough Summary TablesAppendix C: Summary Tables of Transfer Station Information (by Type and Borough)Appendix D: Notices of Violations Table


1

I. Introduction

New York City's residents and businesses generate vast amounts of many types of waste materialswhich must be disposed of: food wastes, yard wastes, animal wastes, furniture and clothing andhousehold goods, construction and demolition debris, concrete and asphalt paving, soils, sinks andtoilets, medical waste, asbestos, paper and cardboard, plastics, scrap metal, dredge spoils, oils,solvents, paints, barrels and buckets and crates, catch basin grit, grease, sewage sludge, junkedvehicles, and every other imaginable discarded matter. For regulatory and management purposes,however, most of the solid waste generated in the City falls into one of four, large, identifiablecategories:

• “putrescible” waste, which is organic matter such as food and yard wastes having thetendency to decompose, creating malodorous by-products;

• “non-putrescible” waste, which is primarily interior and exterior construction anddemolition (“C&D”) debris including concrete, plaster, rock, waste timber, tiles, glass, wood,sheetrock, metal, electrical wires and cables, asphalt, shingles, and other non-organicmaterial;

• “fill material,” which is excavated dirt, concrete, rock, gravel, sand, and stone; and • “recyclables,” which either are “source separated” before collection, such as metal, glass,

certain plastics, cardboard, and paper; or are reusable materials sorted and separated fromC&D debris and fill material, such as metals, dirt, aggregate, stone, and asphalt millings.

The materials which do not fit into these four categories, such as liquids, hazardous wastes, medicalwastes, sewage sludge, etc., are managed by specialized disposal companies under contract with thewaste generators. In New York City, the volume of these “other” wastes is approximately 41 tonsper day.

The New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) collects and disposes of putrescible and non-putrescible waste from residences, institutions, not-for-profit organizations, lot cleaning operations,and other City agencies. Private waste carting companies collect and dispose of putrescible andnon-putrescible waste from commercial sources in the City. Both DOS and commercial wastehandlers recycle “source separated” materials including paper, cardboard, metal, glass, and plastic;


2

and most commercial waste handlers separate and sell the valuable and reusable materials containedin C&D debris and fill material.

Since 1993, the City has had only one in-City waste disposal site: the Fresh Kills Landfill in StatenIsland. Four years earlier, in 1989, when DOS raised the “tipping fee” for commercial wastedisposal at Fresh Kills, private waste handlers began exporting the City’s commercial waste to out-of-City disposal facilities in order to save costs. DOS continued to transport most of the City’sresidential waste via barge to Fresh Kills. In 1996, the State Legislature mandated the closure ofFresh Kills by January 1, 2002. The following year, DOS began phasing down its use of Fresh Killsand driving its collection trucks to private “waste transfer stations” within or outside the City, wherethe waste is transferred to long-haul trucks (or trains) for transport to out-of-City disposal facilitiessuch as landfills and resource recovery facilities.

DOS has long maintained comprehensive records of the residential waste which it manages. Inaddition, beginning in 1990, Local Law 40 required operators of dumps and private transfer stationswithin the City to maintain and submit quarterly reports to DOS on their commercial solid wasteinflow and outflow. These transfer station quarterly reports, which were revised and refined overthe years, enabled DOS to roughly monitor the flow, although not the in-City origins, of commercialwaste. Now, however, without Fresh Kills, private transfer stations must manage both residential andcommercial waste for the next few years, and it has become important to develop accurate data onthe volumes, origins, destinations, and constituents of New York City’s total commercial andresidential waste streams. To this end, the New York City Council enacted Local Law 74 of 2000,which requires DOS to conduct a comprehensive study of the City’s existing commercial system formanaging putrescible and non-putrescible solid waste. The study will augment and include theinformation in DOS records.

This Preliminary Report presents data on the commercial waste stream in Calendar Year 2000,collected from waste handlers in the metropolitan New York region, and some findings andconclusions that can be drawn from that data. The subsequent comprehensive study will analyze andassess the adequacy and impacts of the siting, permitting, operations, and regulation of the City’swaste management infrastructure.


3

II. Summary of Findings and Conclusions

• In Calendar Year 2000, New York City’s commercial waste stream was 36,184 tons perday (tpd), of which 9,991 tpd (28%) were putrescible waste, 12,645 tpd (35%) were non-putresciblewaste, and 13,548 tpd (37%) were recyclables and fill material. While almost 95% of the putresciblewaste was exported to out-of-City destinations (transfer stations, landfills, and resource recoveryfacilities), 4,124 tpd (41%) of the non-putrescible waste and 12,914 (67%) of the recycling/fillmaterial were processed for reuse in the City at construction and excavation sites, asphalt plants,waste handlers, the Visy recycled paper plant in Staten Island, and yard waste composting facilities.In total, 17,128 tpd (44%) of commercial waste was recycled and reused.

• In Calendar Year 2000, the City’s residential (DOS-managed) waste stream was 18,547tpd, of which 10,800 tpd (58%) were putrescible waste, 995 tpd (5%) were non-putrescible waste,and 6,752 tpd (37%) were recyclables and fill material. Slightly more than half of the residentialwaste was exported to out-of-City destinations (transfer stations, landfills, and resource recoveryfacilities in Long Island and New Jersey and other states). All of the putrescible waste and much ofthe non-putrescible waste and fill material that remained in the City was disposed of at the FreshKills Landfill, the last remaining in-City disposal facility. (The Fresh Kills Landfill was closed inMarch 2001.) Recycled paper was sent to the Visy recycled paper plant on Staten Island and to otherpaper recyclers.

• In Calendar Year 2000, the City’s total waste stream was 54,731 tpd, of which 66% wascommercial waste, and 34% was residential (DOS-managed) waste. All but 847 tpd (2%) of thiswaste originated in the City, while 30,964 tpd (54%) were exported to final out-of-City destinations(transfer stations, landfills, and resource recovery facilities). Of the exported waste, 15,375 tpd(50%) were putrescible waste, 6,109 tpd (20%) were non-putrescible waste, and 9,480 tpd (30%)were recycling/fill material. Of the waste remaining in the City, 4,461 tpd (17%) were putresciblewaste, 5,114 tpd (20%) were non-putrescible waste, and 16,623 tpd (63%) were recycling/fillmaterial. In total, 21,737 tpd of non-putrescible waste and recycling/fill material were recycled andreused.


4

• Before being exported to final out-of-City destinations, most of the City’s total wastestream was delivered to intermediate destinations – primarily in-City waste transfer stations – forprocessing, sorting, storing, and transferring to other waste handling facilities. In Calendar Year2000, the City contained 76 waste transfer stations. Twenty-four transfer stations, with a totalcapacity of 19,084 tpd, handled putrescible waste; 30 transfer stations, with a total capacity of 35,936tpd, handled non-putrescible waste; and 22 transfer stations, with a total capacity of 800,078 cubicyards per day (cyd), handled fill material.

• In Calendar Year 2000, the Fresh Kills Landfill received 4,018 tpd of residential (DOS-managed) putrescible waste collected in Queens, as well as asphalt millings for road constructionand processed non-putrescible waste and fill material for roads, cover, and grading. When DOSstopped disposing of putrescible waste at Fresh Kills in March 2001, all 19,836 tpd of putresciblewaste in the City’s total waste stream had to be transferred at private transfer stations in and out ofthe City and transported to out-of-City disposal destinations. When the need for cover, road-building, and grading material at Fresh Kills ceases, much of the City’s non-putrescible waste andfill material also may have to be exported. The adequacy of the City’s solid waste infrastructure ofprivate transfer stations to handle the increased volume of putrescible and non-putrescible waste isuncertain.

• In Calendar Year 2000, when Fresh Kills still was receiving 4,018 tpd of residential (DOS-managed) putrescible waste, the volume of putrescible waste in the City’s total waste streamexceeded the permitted capacity of the 24 in-City putrescible waste transfer stations by 1,734 tpd.Adding the 4,018 tpd to the City’s total volume of putrescible waste has overtaxed the infrastructureof private transfer stations in the City, and more of the City’s total waste stream is being deliveredto out-of-City transfer stations.

• The data in this Preliminary Report has obvious inconsistencies that result from manyfactors:

– First, waste generation fluctuates by season, by economic cycle, by year. Reusableconstruction material processed from non-putrescible waste and fill material can remain in storagefor many months, until suddenly it is needed, and moves into the waste stream. When this happens,


5

more waste reportedly is sent to in-City and out-of-City destinations than originates in the City – aseemingly inconsistent result.

– Second, the data was collected during a specific period of time, from unaudited reports andsurveys. Some carters and haulers could not specify where they collected or delivered their wasteloads. Some could only estimate the amounts they delivered to various transfer stations and otherdestinations. Despite cross-checking and careful analysis of survey and interview forms and transferstation quarterly reports, some of the data is erroneous and inconsistent.

– Third, waste does not flow directly from collection to transfer station to disposal site.Instead, the flow of waste is very complex, which makes tracking the origins and destinations of theCity’s waste stream imperfect. Putrescible waste transfer stations may sort and separate outrecyclable material, which they transfer to recycling facilities or specific material handlers andprocessors. Non-putrescible waste and fill material transfer stations sort, sift, process, and transformconstruction and demolition (C&D) debris and fill material into useable construction products suchas sand, rock, and aggregate. They store the building materials on site, or transfer them to otherC&D or fill material transfer stations for storage or sale, or to construction and excavation sites forstorage or immediate reuse. They transfer other materials such as metals to scrap metal yards ormetal processors. Recyclables handling facilities separate putrescible and non-putrescible wastefrom the recyclable material, and either transfer it to appropriate transfer stations or export it fordisposal. All of these transfers resulted in seemingly inexplicable decreases and increases in thevolumes of specific waste categories. See Figure 1.

• In order to understand and assess the City’s commercial waste stream, private waste cartersand their regulators must maintain accurate data and records about the origins, volumes, anddestinations of the waste that they manage. When such records are correlated with the transferstation quarterly reports, they will provide a complete and accurate picture of the commercial wastemanagement system.


7

III. Methodology

A. Data CollectionIn order to compile in a usable form all available data on the City’s commercial waste stream, DOSand the Trade Waste Commission (TWC) (which regulates private waste carters), working with aconsultant, Urbitran Associates (Urbitran), created a computer database of information collectedfrom surveys and interviews with waste handlers in the metropolitan New York region. Althoughthe data was collected in 2001, it measures the commercial solid waste stream during Calendar Year2000, before Fresh Kills ceased receiving any of the City’s residential waste.

In the first phase of data collection, DOS and the TWC mailed a three-section survey to all of theprivate waste handling companies that they regulate, including waste transfer stations, recyclingfacilities, waste carters, and self-haulers, such as contractors and landscapers which transport anddispose of the waste they generate during their jobs. The survey solicited information on thecompany (current name and address, licenses and registrations), the types and origins of the wastematerial collected and/or handled, and the types and locations of the in-City and out-of-Citydestinations to which the waste was transported. Recipients were asked to return the survey by mailto the TWC. Appendix A contains a copy of the survey form.

Following the compilation of this information in the database, teams of interviewers undertookpersonal on-site or faxed interviews with 840 private waste handling companies located in foursectors of the region: Bronx/Queens (250 companies); Brooklyn/Queens (257 companies), NorthernNew York/Connecticut/Long Island (162 companies), and Staten Island/New Jersey (171companies). Of the 840 companies on the contact list, DOS successfully completed 796 interviews.(DOS was unable to conduct interviews with the remaining 44 companies.)

In order to identify the origins and destinations of New York City’s commercial waste stream, theinterview form solicited detailed information on: 1) waste collected within the City and depositedat a transfer station within the City; 2) waste collected outside of the City but deposited at a transferstation within the City; and 3) waste collected within the City and deposited at a transfer station ordisposal facility outside of the City. The information included waste type, volume collected, volume


8

deposited, origin, and destination (borough and facility). The interview form was augmented withfield notes about the waste handlers and facilities.

With the combined interview and survey data, DOS produced a database which identifies all of theprivate carting companies and transfer stations operating in the New York City metropolitan regionin Calendar Year 2000, the types and volumes of waste material each handled, and the origins anddestinations of that waste. Appendix B contains profiles of these transfer stations.

B. Data Evaluation and AssessmentIn order to develop a complete picture of the existing commercial waste management system as itexisted in Calendar Year 2000, DOS and Urbitran assessed the information in the database againstthat in the transfer station quarterly reports filed with DOS. When carters reported delivering morewaste than the transfer stations reported receiving, DOS deemed this waste to be “excess.”

The transfer stations, recycling facilities, waste carters, and self-haulers reported information on thevolumes, types, origins, and destinations of the waste they handle on survey forms, interview forms,and transfer station reports. The excess commercial waste may also reflect reporting errors such asdouble counting, inconsistencies or errors in transfer station reports, discrepancies andinconsistencies in survey and interview responses, and inconsistent conversions of tons into cubicyards or cubic yards into tons. Regardless of the explanation for the excess commercial waste, inorder to be conservative, DOS included it in its calculations of the City’s total commercial andcombined commercial-residential waste streams.

The factors that resulted in excess commercial waste also resulted in inconsistent total volumes ofwaste in the “origins” and “destinations” waste streams presented in the Tables in this Report.Because waste does not always flow directly from collection to transfer station to disposal site,tracking the origins and destinations of the City’s waste stream is imperfect. Some putrescible wastetransfer stations sort and separate out recyclable material, which they transfer to recycling facilitiesor specific material handlers and processors. Non-putrescible waste and fill material transfer stationssort, sift, process, and transform C&D debris and fill material into useable construction productssuch as sand, rock, aggregate, and metals. They store, transfer, and sell these materials to otherwaste handlers, material processors, construction and excavation sites. Recyclables handling


9

facilities separate putrescible and non-putrescible waste from the recyclable material, and eithertransfer the waste residue to appropriate transfer stations or export it for disposal. All of these wastetransfers, accompanied by conversions of volume from tons to cubic yards, and vice versa, resultedin confusing inconsistencies in the “origins” and “destinations” waste streams.

The Tables in this Report show volumes of waste originating and having destinations “within” or“outside” New York City. These unspecified origins and destinations reflect the inability of cartersand haulers to identify the specific locations where they collected or delivered their waste loads.


10

IV. Solid Waste Transfer Stations

A. StatisticsIn Calendar Year 2000, New York City contained 76 operating transfer stations, of which 24 handledputrescible waste, 30 handled non-putrescible waste, and 22 handled fill material. (Eleven of thetransfer stations were inactive). DOS and the New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (DEC) permit and regulate the transfer stations located within the City. Theircombined enforcement efforts have significantly improved transfer station operations, and havecontributed to the closure of 26 transfer stations since 1996.

The putrescible waste transfer stations had a total permitted capacity of 19,084 tpd. The non-putrescible waste transfer stations had a total permitted capacity of 35,936 tpd. The capacities of fillmaterial transfer stations are measured in cubic yards of storage, which are less relevant to the totalcapacity of the waste management infrastructure to handle the City’s daily waste stream.

In Calendar Year 2000, as today, most of the transfer stations were located in the Bronx, Brooklyn,and Queens. Manhattan contained just two small fill material transfer stations, which had acombined permitted storage capacity of 450 cubic yards. Staten Island contained no putresciblewaste transfer stations; six non-putrescible waste transfer stations, with a total permitted capacityof 7,404 tpd; and three fill material transfer stations. The Bronx contained eight putrescible wastetransfer stations, with a total permitted capacity of 8,123 tpd; six non-putrescible waste transferstations, with a total permitted capacity of 4,442 tpd; and four fill material transfer stations.Brooklyn contained ten putrescible waste transfer stations, with a total permitted capacity of 9,275tpd; thirteen non-putrescible waste transfer stations, with a total permitted capacity of 22,193 tpd;and three fill material transfer stations. Queens contained six putrescible waste transfer stations,with a total permitted capacity of 1,686 tpd; five non-putrescible waste transfer stations, with a totalpermitted capacity of 1,897 tpd; and ten fill material transfer stations. All 76 permitted transferstations are located in industrial/manufacturing zones where they are an “as of right” use; 52 arelocated in heavy industry M-2 and M-3 zones.


11

Appendix C contains summary tables listing the transfer station names and addresses, locations byborough and community board, permitted capacity, current operating capacity, additional availablecapacity, and the volumes of residential and commercial waste handled.

In addition to the transfer stations located within the five boroughs, the surrounding counties in NewYork and New Jersey have many transfer stations within reasonable driving distance of the City.Both DOS and private carters deliver New York City waste to these transfer stations.

B. Permitting and RegulationThe State DEC has authority to permit and regulate solid waste transfer stations pursuant to its “Part360" regulations (6 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations [NYCRR] Part 360). DOS hasauthority to permit and regulate transfer stations pursuant to title 16, sections 130-133, of the NewYork City Administrative Code (Ad Code) and title 16, chapter 4, of the Rules of the City of NewYork (RCNY). Since 1992, DEC and DOS have conducted coordinated environmental impactreviews of all proposed new transfer stations in the City in accordance with the terms of a New YorkState Supreme Court Stipulation and Order in City of New York v. New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation, Supreme Court, Albany Co., Index No. 7218/91.

In 1998, DOS adopted a stringent rule governing the siting of transfer stations even in theindustrial/manufacturing zones where they are an “as of right” use (RCNY title 16, ch.4, subch. C.).This rule establishes mandatory buffer zones between transfer stations and such “sensitive receptors”as residential zoning district boundaries, schools, and parks. Pursuant to a court order inOrganization of Waterfront Neighborhoods (OWN) v. Carpinello, Supreme Court, New York Co.Index No. 103661/99, DOS is redrafting the siting rule to address the clustering of transfer stations.

The DEC Part 360 regulations and the DOS transfer station operating rules govern transfer stationoperations. Appendix D contains a chart of the Notices of Violation (NOVs) that DOS has issuedfor violations of these rules for each of the past five years. Transfer station NOVs carry penaltiesof $2,500 to $10,000, and are adjudicated at the City Environmental Control Board (ECB). InCalendar Year 2000, DOS obtained guilty verdicts and pleas for 221 NOVs issued for transfer stationviolations. The ECB assessed $603,500 in penalties and fines against transfer station operators forthese violations.


12

V. Findings

A. New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Tables 1-4; Figures 1a-4)

Origins:As is discussed in the Methodology section, above, DOS used three sources of data to compilefindings on the City’s commercial waste stream: the transfer station quarterly reports, the privatewaste handler surveys and interviews, and its own records of residential waste delivered to FreshKills and to in-City and out-of-City transfer stations. Based on these data sources, in Calendar Year2000, the 76 transfer stations in the City received 36,184 tpd of commercial waste (including excess).Of this total, 12,754 tpd (35%) originated at unspecified locations throughout the five boroughs. Ofthe remainder, 6,042 tpd (17%) originated in Manhattan; 4,336 tpd (12%) originated in the Bronx;3,435 tpd (10%) originated in Brooklyn; 3,667 tpd (10%) originated in Staten Island; 5,103 tpd(14%) originated in Queens; and 847 tpd (2%) originated outside of the City. Table 1 presents thedata on the origins of the commercial waste stream. Figures 1a, 1b, 2, 3 and 4 illustrate this data.

In Calendar Year 2000, non-putrescible waste, recyclables, and fill material constituted over 70%of the City’s commercial waste stream (including excess). Only 9,991 tpd (28%) were putresciblewaste, while 12,645 tpd (35%) were non-putrescible waste, and 13,548 tpd (37%) were recycling/fillmaterial. See Table 1 and Figure 1b.

The volume of commercial waste that the carters and haulers reported collecting in the five boroughsand outside the City exceeded by 7,233 tpd the volume that the 76 transfer stations reportedreceiving. DOS deemed this tonnage to be excess commercial waste, and included it in thecommercial waste stream in this Report. Of the 7,233 tpd of excess commercial waste, 2,530 tpd(35%) were transported directly to out-of-City transfer stations or disposal facilities. The excessremaining in-City could have been delivered to other locations, or could represent reporting errorsand inconsistencies and inaccurate conversions between tons and cubic yards. Table 4 presents thedata on excess commercial waste. Figure 4 illustrates this data.

Table 1: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess);Origins and Final Destinations

Calendar Year 2000 in Tons Per Day (tpd)

ORIGINS Putrescible Non-Putrescible Recycling/Fill Total

New York CityManhattan 2,411 2,588 1,043 6,042Bronx 1,295 1,852 1,189 4,336Brooklyn 791 1,646 998 3,435Staten Island 68 1,598 2,001 3,667Queens 972 1,643 2,488 5,103within NYC 4,239 2,795 5,720 12,754

SUBTOTAL 9,776 12,122 13,439 35,337

Out-of-CityNassau 0 9 0 9Suffolk 0 0 0 0Westchester 0 2 0 2outside NYC 215 512 109 836

SUBTOTAL 215 523 109 847

TOTAL 9,991 12,645 13,548 36,184

FINAL DESTINATIONS Putrescible1 Non-Putrescible Recycling/Fill Total

New York CityManhattan 0 4 49 53Bronx 1 489 322 812Brooklyn 379 860 206 1,445Staten Island 1 575 1,416 1,992Queens 62 2,224 705 2,991within NYC 0 62 10,216 10,278

SUBTOTAL 443 4,214 12,914 17,571

Out-of-City2

Nassau 27 1,057 831 1,915Suffolk 27 684 946 1,657Westchester 28 89 100 217outside NYC 8,511 4,279 4,560 17,350

SUBTOTAL 8,593 6,109 6,437 21,139

TOTAL 9,036 10,323 19,351 38,710

Note 1: Final in-City putrescible waste destinations include facilities that received 443 tpd of excess commercial waste.

Note 2: In this Report, both final and intermediate out-of-City destinations include transfer stations, recycling facilities, and disposal facilities.

13

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

OriginsFinal Destinations

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000To

ns p

er D

ay (t

pd)

Calendar Year 2000

Figure 1a: Origins and Final Destinations of Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess)

Origins Final Destinations

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

land

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

Putrescible

Fill/Recycling0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000T

ons P

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 1b: Origins of Commercial Waste (Including Excess) by Type of Waste

Calendar Year 2000

Putrescible Non-Putrescible Fill/Recycling

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

land

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

Putrescible

Fill/Recycling0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000To

ns P

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 1c: Final Destinations of Commercial Waste (Including Excess) by Type of Waste

Calendar Year 2000


Table 2: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess);Origins and Intermediate Destinations



New York CityManhattan 2,411 2,588 1,043 6,042Bronx 1,295 1,852 1,189 4,336Brooklyn 791 1,646 998 3,435Staten Island 68 1,598 2,001 3,667Queens 972 1,643 2,488 5,103within NYC 4,239 2,795 5,720 12,754

SUBTOTAL 9,776 12,122 13,439 35,337


SUBTOTAL 215 523 109 847

TOTAL 9,991 12,645 13,548 36,184

INTERMEDIATE DESTINATIONS Putrescible Non-Putrescible Recycling/Fill Total

New York City1

Manhattan 0 4 0 4Bronx 3,185 1,411 3,310 7,906Brooklyn 4,498 4,152 4,328 12,978Staten Island 1 846 4,131 4,978Queens 694 2,574 7,042 10,310within NYC 0 0 4 4

SUBTOTAL 8,378 8,987 18,815 36,180

Out-of-City2

Nassau 13 169 2 184Suffolk 27 147 42 216Westchester 0 58 0 58outside NYC 618 962 492 2,072

SUBTOTAL 658 1,336 536 2,530

TOTAL 9,036 10,323 19,351 38,710

Note 1: Intermediate in-City destinations of commercial waste (excluding excess) consist of transfer stations. Intermediate in-City destinations of excess commercial waste are unclearbecause excess commercial waste may reflect reporting errors.

Note 2: The commercial waste sent to both final and intermediate out-of-City destinations is excesssent by carters and haulers directly out-of-City to transfer stations, recycling facilities and disposalfacilities. 17

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

OriginsIntermediate Destinations

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Tons

Per

Day

(tpd

)Figure 2: Origins and Intermediate Destinations of

Commercial Waste Stream (Including Excess)Calendar Year 2000

Origins Intermediate Destinations

Table 3: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (as Reported by Transfer Stations);

Origins and Final DestinationsCalendar Year 2000 in Tons Per Day (tpd)


New York CityManhattan 1,232 1,667 740 3,639Bronx 1,096 1,550 946 3,592Brooklyn 622 1,192 276 2,090Staten Island 61 1,206 1,806 3,073Queens 798 988 1,379 3,165within NYC 4,239 2,795 5,720 12,754

SUBTOTAL 8,048 9,398 10,867 28,313


SUBTOTAL 209 320 109 638

TOTAL 8,257 9,718 10,976 28,951

FINAL DESTINATIONS Putrescible Non-Putrescible Recycling/Fill Total

New York CityManhattan 0 0 49 49Bronx 0 0 305 305Brooklyn 0 25 101 126Staten Island 0 149 1,385 1,534Queens 0 2 684 686within NYC 0 62 10,212 10,274

SUBTOTAL 0 238 12,736 12,974

Out-of-City1

Nassau 14 888 829 1,731Suffolk 0 537 904 1,441Westchester 28 31 100 159outside NYC 7,893 3,317 4,068 15,278

SUBTOTAL 7,935 4,773 5,901 18,609

TOTAL 7,935 5,011 18,637 31,583


19

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000To

ns P

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 3: Origins and Final Destinations of New York City Commercial Waste Stream (as Reported by Transfer Stations)

Calendar Year 2000


Table 4: New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Excess);Origins and Final Destinations



New York CityManhattan 1,179 921 303 2,403Bronx 199 302 243 744Brooklyn 169 454 722 1,345Staten Island 7 392 195 594Queens 174 655 1,109 1,938within NYC 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL 1,728 2,724 2,572 7,024


SUBTOTAL 6 203 0 209

TOTAL 1,734 2,927 2,572 7,233

FINAL DESTINATIONS Putrescible1 Non-Putrescible Recycling/Fill Total

New York CityManhattan 0 4 0 4Bronx 1 489 17 507Brooklyn 379 835 105 1,319Staten Island 1 426 31 458Queens 62 2,222 21 2,305within NYC 0 0 4 4

SUBTOTAL 443 3,976 178 4,597

Out-of-City2


SUBTOTAL 658 1,336 536 2,530

TOTAL 1,101 5,312 714 7,127

Note 1: Final in-City putrescible waste destinations include facilities that received 443 tpd of excess commercial waste.

Note 2: The commercial waste sent to both final and intermediate out-of-City destinations is excesssent by carters and haulers directly out-of-City to transfer stations, recycling facilities and disposalfacilities.

21

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Tons

Per

Day

(tpd

)

Figure 4: Origins and Final Destinations of New York City Commercial Waste Stream (Excess)

Calendar Year 2000



23

Of the excess commercial waste, 2,403 tpd (33%) originated in Manhattan; 744 tpd (10%) originatedin the Bronx; 1,345 tpd (19%) originated in Brooklyn; 594 tpd (8%) originated in Staten Island;1,938 tpd (27%) originated in Queens; and 209 tpd (3%) originated outside the City. By category,1,734 tpd (24%) were putrescible waste; 2,927 tpd (40%) were non-putrescible waste; and 2,572 tpd(36%) were recycling/fill material. See Table 4 and Figure 4.

The transfer stations in the City reported receiving 28,951 tpd of commercial waste in Calendar Year2000. Of this total, which of course excludes the 7,233 tpd of excess tonnage discussed above, 3,639tpd (13%) originated in Manhattan; 3,592 tpd (12%) originated in the Bronx; 2,090 tpd (7%)originated in Brooklyn; 3,073 tpd (11%) originated in Staten Island; 3,165 tpd (11%) originated inQueens; 12,754 tpd (44%) originated at unspecified locations throughout the five boroughs; and 638tpd (2%) originated outside of the City. Table 3 presents the data on the origins of the commercialwaste stream as reported by the transfer stations (without excess). Figure 3 illustrates this data. By category, of the 28,951 tpd of commercial waste (excluding excess), 8,257 tpd (29%) wereputrescible waste; 9,718 tpd (34%) were non-putrescible waste; and 10,976 tpd (37%) wererecycling/fill material. See Table 3.

Destinations:Under DOS transfer station operating rules, putrescible waste may remain at a transfer station nolonger than 48 hours. Thus, transfer stations may not store the putrescible waste they receive daily.Since Fresh Kills closed in March 2001, New York City has had no disposal sites, and all putresciblewaste must be exported to out-of-City landfills or resource recovery facilities. In contrast, muchnon-putrescible waste and fill material can remain in the City. Waste in both of these categories isprocessed (sifted, ground up, and sorted) to remove recyclable materials and to create new reusableproducts such as various sized aggregate, sand, clean fill, and other construction material. Therecyclable materials are transported to processors; the reusable products are stockpiled at the transferstation for later use or are transported to other transfer stations for storage, or to construction andexcavation sites. Such destinations can be in or out of the City. Only useless, residual waste mustgo to an out-of-City disposal site.


24

Similarly, recycling facilities, after sorting and separating the metal, glass, plastic, cardboard, paper,textiles, and other recyclable materials that they receive, send the non-recyclable materials to othertransfer stations or disposal sites.

In order to track the different waste flows, DOS compiled data on the intermediate and finaldestinations of the various types of commercial waste that originate in the City. Intermediatedestinations are transfer stations and recycling facilities that receive putrescible and non-putresciblewaste and recycling/fill material from private carters, DOS, and other transfer stations and recyclingfacilities. They process, sort, and transfer this material for transport to a final disposal site or toanother transfer station for additional processing or temporary storage. Final destinations arefacilities or sites that receive waste from transfer stations or haulers directly for final disposal. Inthis report, final destinations include:• landfills and resource recovery facilities that receive putrescible waste, non-putrescible

waste, fill material, and residual waste from transfer stations and haulers;• construction and excavation sites that receive recycled materials from non-putrescible and

fill material transfer stations for reuse;• scrap metal dealers, automobile crushing facilities, asphalt plants, oil recycling companies,

and other waste handlers;• composting facilities that receive yard waste;• any out-of-City waste management facility that receives City commercial or residential

(DOS-managed) waste.

Tables 1-4 present the data on the intermediate and final destinations of the commercial wastestream. Figures 1a, 1c, 2, 3 and 4 illustrate this data.

Commercial waste does not flow directly from carters and haulers to transfer stations to finaldisposal sites. While putrescible waste is most likely to follow this course, non-putrescible wasteand fill material more often are converted to recyclable material that is reused rather than disposedof. The volume of putrescible commercial waste (with and without excess) originating in New YorkCity approximates the volume sent to intermediate and final destinations. See Tables 1-4. However,the volume of non-putrescible commercial waste (including excess) originating in the City reportedlyexceeds the volume sent to intermediate and final destinations. And, in contrast, the volume of


25

commercial recycling/fill material (including excess) sent to intermediate and final destinationsreportedly exceeds the volume originating in the City.

The often wide differences between the origins and destinations of specific categories of commercialwaste reported in Tables 1-4 reflect the complex flows of waste, recyclables, fill material, and post-processing materials among transfer stations, other waste handlers, storage sites, and disposal sites,and the effects of converting volumes from cubic yards to tons, and vice-versa. However, the totalvolumes of commercial waste originating in the City are closer to the total volumes sent tointermediate and final destinations. For example, in Calendar Year 2000, the 76 transfer stations inthe City reported receiving a total of 28,951 tpd of commercial waste, and reported sending 31,583tpd to final destinations. See Table 3 and Figure 3. The storage of fill material at transfer stationsprobably accounts for the 2,632 tpd (8%) difference between inflow and outflow.

The intermediate destinations of almost all of the commercial waste (including excess) were withinNew York City. Of the 36,184 tpd of commercial waste with in-City intermediate destinations,Manhattan received 4 tpd (<1%); the Bronx received 7,906 tpd (22%); Brooklyn received 12,978tpd(36%); Staten Island received 4,978 tpd (14%); Queens received 10,310 tpd (28%); and unspecifiedlocations within the City received 4 tpd (<1%). These destinations largely correspond to the boroughlocations of the transfer stations. By category, 8,378 tpd (23%) were putrescible waste; 8,987 tpd(25%) were non-putrescible waste; and 18,815 tpd (52%) were recycling/fill material. See Table2 and Figure 2.

Only the 2,530 tpd of excess commercial waste went directly to out-of-City intermediatedestinations. Of this volume, Nassau County received 184 tpd (7%); Suffolk County received 216tpd (9%); Westchester County received 58 tpd (2%); and unspecified locations outside the Cityreceived 2,072 tpd (82%). These intermediate destinations included transfer stations, recyclingfacilities, and disposal facilities. By category, 658 tpd (26%) were putrescible waste; 1,336 tpd(53%) were non-putrescible waste; and 536 tpd (21%) were recycling/fill material. See Table 2.

In contrast with the intermediate destinations, the final destinations of commercial waste (includingexcess) were divided almost equally between in-City and out-of-City locations. Of the 17,571 tpdof commercial waste with in-City final destinations, Manhattan received 53 tpd (<1%); the Bronx


26

received 812 tpd (5%); Brooklyn received 1,445 tpd (8%); Staten Island received 1,992 tpd (11%);Queens received 2,991 tpd (17%); and unspecified locations within the City received 10,278 tpd(58%). By category, 443 tpd (3%) were putrescible waste; 4,214 tpd (24%) were non-putresciblewaste; and 12,914 tpd (73%) were recycling/fill material. See Table 1 and Figure 1a. In additionto the Fresh Kills Landfill, which received asphalt millings and fill material, the in-City finaldestinations included construction and excavation sites, asphalt plants, waste handlers such as scrapmetal dealers and automobile crushers, the Visy paper recycling facility in Staten Island, and yardwaste composting facilities.

Of the 21,139 tpd of commercial waste (including excess) with out-of-City final destinations, NassauCounty received 1,915 tpd (9%); Suffolk County received 1,657 tpd (8%); Westchester Countyreceived 217 tpd (1%); and unspecified locations outside the City received 17,350 tpd (82%). Bycategory, 8,593 tpd (41%) were putrescible waste; 6,109 tpd (29%) were non-putrescible waste; and6,437 tpd (30%) were recycling/fill material. See Table 1 and Figure 1c. The out-of-City finaldestinations included landfills, resource recovery facilities, construction and excavation sites, andtransfer stations (which then presumably sent the waste to final disposal locations).

B. New York City Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream (Tables 5-6; Figures5-6c)

Origins:As is mentioned in Section I, DOS has long maintained comprehensive records of theresidential/institutional waste which it manages. With the closure of the Fresh Kills Landfill, privatetransfer stations in the New York City metropolitan region now must handle all of the wastecollected by DOS and historically disposed of at Fresh Kills. Because of this dramatic change in themanagement of the City’s total waste stream and the significantly increased reliance on the region’sprivate waste management infrastructure, DOS included in this Report the waste that it collects.

Table 5: New York City Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream; Origins and Intermediate Destinations



New York CityManhattan 1,978 72 538 2,588Bronx 1,705 113 285 2,103Brooklyn 3,266 185 676 4,127Staten Island 905 30 213 1,148Queens 2,946 595 747 4,288within NYC 0 0 4,293 4,293

SUBTOTAL 10,800 995 6,752 18,547

Out-of-Cityoutside NYC 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 10,800 995 6,752 18,547


New York CityManhattan 0 0 0 0Bronx 1,702 113 0 1,815Brooklyn 2,410 104 0 2,514Staten Island1 0 0 0 0Queens 0 0 0 0within NYC 0 0 3,043 3,043

SUBTOTAL 4,112 217 3,043 7,372

Out-of-Cityoutside NYC 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 4,112 217 3,043 7,372

Note 1: The Fresh Kills Landfill and Visy paper recycling facility on Staten Island, which received8,410 tpd of putrescible and non-putrescible waste and recycling/fill material, are not considered in-City intermediate destinations.

27

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Tons

per

Day

(tpd

)Figure 5: Origins and Intermediate Destinations of

Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste StreamCalendar Year 2000


Table 6: New York City Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream; Origins and Final Destinations



New York CityManhattan 1,978 72 538 2,588Bronx 1,705 113 285 2,103Brooklyn 3,266 185 676 4,127Staten Island 905 30 213 1,148Queens 2,946 595 747 4,288within NYC 0 0 4,293 4,293

SUBTOTAL 10,800 995 6,752 18,547

Out-of-City 0 0 0 0SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 10,800 995 6,752 18,547


New York CityManhattan 0 0 0 0Bronx 0 0 0 0Brooklyn 0 0 0 0Staten Island1 4,018 683 3,709 8,410Queens 0 0 0 0within NYC 0 0 0 0

SUBTOTAL 4,018 683 3,709 8,410

Out-of-City2

outside NYC 6,782 312 3,043 10,137SUBTOTAL 6,782 312 3,043 10,137

TOTAL 10,800 995 6,752 18,547

Note 1: The Fresh Kills Landfill and Visy paper recycling facility on Staten Island are final in-Citydestinations.


29

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C


0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000T

ons p

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 6a: Origins and Final Destinations of Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream

Calendar Year 2000


Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

land

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

Putrescible

Fill/Recycling0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000To

ns P

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 6b: Origins of Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste by Type of Waste

Calendar Year 2000


Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

land

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

Putrescible

Fill/Recycling0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000To

ns P

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 6c: Final Destinations of Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste by Type of Waste

Calendar Year 2000



33

According to its records, in Calendar Year 2000, DOS collected 18,547 tpd of waste from residences,institutions, not-for-profit organizations, lot cleaning operations, and other City agencies. Of thistotal, 4,293 tpd (23%) were recyclable materials which originated at unspecified locations throughoutthe five boroughs. Of the remainder, 2,588 tpd (14%) originated in Manhattan; 2,103 tpd (11%)originated in the Bronx; 4,127 tpd (22%) originated in Brooklyn; 1,148 tpd (6%) originated in StatenIsland; and 4,288 tpd (23%) originated in Queens. None of the waste originated outside of the City.Table 5 presents the data on the origins of the residential (DOS-managed) waste stream. Figures5, 6a and 6b illustrate this data. By category, DOS collected 10,800 tpd (58%) of putrescible waste;995 tpd (5%) of non-putrescible waste; and 6,752 tpd (37%) of recyclables. DOS did not collect fillmaterial.

Destinations:In Calendar Year 2000, DOS was delivering some of the City’s residential waste to the Fresh KillsLandfill for final disposal, and the rest to private transfer stations in and out of the City. Of the18,547 tpd of residential (DOS-managed) waste, 7,372 tpd (40%) were transported to intermediatedestinations in the City, while the other 11,175 (60%) went directly to final in-City destinations (theFresh Kills Landfill or Visy paper recycling facility on Staten Island) or to out-of-City destinations.Tables 5 and 6 present the data on the destinations of the residential (DOS-managed) waste stream.Figures 5, 6a and 6c illustrate this data.

Of the 7,372 tpd of residential (DOS-managed) waste sent to intermediate destinations in the City,4,112 tpd (56%) were putrescible waste; 217 tpd (3%) were non-putrescible waste primarily fromlot cleaning operations; and 3,043 tpd (41%) were recyclables which DOS collected and deliveredto recycling facilities at unspecified locations within the City. By borough destination, DOSdelivered 1,815 tpd (25%) to transfer stations in the Bronx; and 2,514 tpd (34%) to transfer stationsin Brooklyn. DOS delivered no residential waste to intermediate destinations in Manhattan orQueens because Manhattan has no putrescible waste transfer stations and DOS had not yet contractedwith Queens transfer stations in Calendar Year 2000 (thus Queens’ waste was transported directlyto the Fresh Kills Landfill for final disposal). See Table 5 and Figure 5.

In contrast with the intermediate destinations, the final destinations of residential (DOS-managed)waste were divided almost equally between in-City and out-of-City locations. All 8,410 tpd of


34

residential waste with in-City final destinations went to the Fresh Kills Landfill and Visy paperrecycling facility. By category, 4,018 tpd (48%) were putrescible waste; 683 tpd (8%) were non-putrescible waste; and 3,709 tpd (44%) were recycling/fill material. All 10,137 tpd of residentialwaste with out-of-City final destinations went to landfills, resource recovery facilities, recyclablematerials processors and transfer stations. By category, 6,782 tpd (67%) were putrescible waste; 312tpd (3%) were non-putrescible waste; and 3,043 tpd (30%) were recycling/fill material. See Table6, Figure 6a and Figure 6c.

C. New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) WasteStream (Tables 7-8; Figures 7-8c)

Adding the volumes of residential (DOS-managed) waste to the volumes of commercial waste(including excess), DOS found that New York City’s combined commercial and residential wastestream was 54,731 tpd in Calendar Year 2000. Of this total volume, 36,184 tpd (66%) werecommercial waste (including excess) and 18,547 tpd (34%) were residential (DOS-managed) waste.

Origins:Of the 54,731 tpd of combined commercial and residential (DOS-managed) waste, 8,630 tpd (16%)originated in Manhattan; 6,439 tpd (12%) originated in the Bronx; 7,562 tpd (14%) originated inBrooklyn; 4,815 tpd (9%) originated in Staten Island; 9,391 tpd (17%) originated in Queens; 17,047tpd (31%) originated at unspecified locations throughout the five boroughs; and 847 tpd (2%)originated outside New York City. Tables 7 and 8 present the data on the origins of the combined,or total, waste stream. Figures 7, 8a and 8b illustrate this data.

By category, the City’s total waste stream consisted of 20,791 tpd (38%) of putrescible waste; 13,640tpd (25%) of non-putrescible waste; and 20,300 tpd (37%) of recycling/fill material. See Tables7 and 8.

Table 7: New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream;

Origins and Intermediate DestinationsCalendar Year 2000 in Tons Per Day (tpd)


New York CityManhattan 4,389 2,660 1,581 8,630Bronx 3,000 1,965 1,474 6,439Brooklyn 4,057 1,831 1,674 7,562Staten Island 973 1,628 2,214 4,815Queens 3,918 2,238 3,235 9,391within NYC 4,239 2,795 10,013 17,047

SUBTOTAL 20,576 13,117 20,191 53,884


SUBTOTAL 215 523 109 847

TOTAL 20,791 13,640 20,300 54,731


New York CityManhattan 0 4 0 4Bronx 4,887 1,524 3,310 9,721Brooklyn 6,908 4,256 4,328 15,492Staten Island1 1 846 4,131 4,978Queens 694 2,574 7,042 10,310within NYC 0 0 3,047 3,047

SUBTOTAL 12,490 9,204 21,858 43,552

Out-of-City2


SUBTOTAL 658 1,336 536 2,530

TOTAL 13,148 10,540 22,394 46,082

Note 1: The Fresh Kills Landfill and Visy paper recycling facility on Staten Island, which received8,410 tpd of putrescible and non-putrescible waste and recycling/fill material, are not considered in-City intermediate destinations.

Note 2: The commercial waste sent to out-of-City intermediate destinations is all excess.

35

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C


05000

100001500020000250003000035000

Tons

per

Day

(tpd

)

Figure 7: Origins and Intermediate Destinations of New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream

Calendar Year 2000


Table 8: New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream;

Origins and Final DestinationsCalendar Year 2000 in Tons Per Day (tpd)


New York CityManhattan 4,389 2,660 1,581 8,630Bronx 3,000 1,965 1,474 6,439Brooklyn 4,057 1,831 1,674 7,562Staten Island 973 1,628 2,214 4,815Queens 3,918 2,238 3,235 9,391within NYC 4,239 2,795 10,013 17,047

SUBTOTAL 20,576 13,117 20,191 53,884


SUBTOTAL 215 523 109 847

TOTAL 20,791 13,640 20,300 54,731


New York City1

Manhattan 0 4 49 53Bronx 1 489 322 812Brooklyn 379 860 206 1,445Staten Island 4,019 1,258 5,125 10,402Queens 62 2,224 705 2,991within NYC 0 62 10,216 10,278

SUBTOTAL 4,461 4,897 16,623 25,981

Out-of-City2

Nassau 27 1,057 831 1,915Suffolk 27 684 946 1,657Westchester 28 89 100 217outside NYC 15,293 4,591 7,603 27,487

SUBTOTAL 15,375 6,421 9,480 31,276

TOTAL 19,836 11,318 26,103 57,257

Note 1: In-City final destinations include the Fresh Kills Landfill and the Visy paper recycling facility on Staten Island.


37

Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

l.

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C


05000

100001500020000250003000035000

Tons

per

Day

(tpd

)

Figure 8a: Origins and Final Destinations of New York City Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste Stream

Calendar Year 2000


Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

land

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

Putrescible

Fill/Recycling0

5000

10000

15000

20000To

ns p

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 8b: Origins of Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste by Type of Waste

Calendar Year 2000


Man

hatta

n

Bro

nx

Bro

okly

n

Stat

en Is

land

Que

ens

All

NY

C

Out

side

NY

C

Putrescible

Fill/Recycling0

5000

10000

15000

20000To

ns p

er D

ay (t

pd)

Figure 8c: Final Destinations of Combined Commercial and Residential (DOS-Managed) Waste by Type of Waste

Calendar Year 2000



41

Destinations:The destinations of the combined commercial and residential (DOS-managed) waste streamobviously conformed to those of the separate commercial and residential waste streams. Of the46,086 tpd of combined commercial and residential (DOS-managed) waste delivered to intermediatedestinations, 43,556 tpd (95%) remained within the City, and 2,530 (5%) were sent out of the City.(The 8,410 tpd of waste sent directly to the Fresh Kills Landfill and Visy paper recycling facilitywere not included in the tonnage sent to intermediate destinations.) Of the 43,556 tpd with in-Cityintermediate destinations, Manhattan received 4 tpd (<1%); the Bronx received 9,721 tpd (22%);Brooklyn received 15,492 tpd (36%); Staten Island received 4,978 tpd (11%); Queens received10,310 tpd (24%); and unspecified locations within the City received 3,047 tpd (7%). By category,12,490 tpd (29%) were putrescible waste; 9,204 tpd (21%) were non-putrescible waste; and 21,858tpd (50%) were recycling/fill material. See Table 7 and Figure 7.

Of the 2,530 tpd of combined commercial and residential (DOS-managed) waste sent to out-of-Cityintermediate destinations, Nassau County received 184 tpd (7%); Suffolk County received 216 tpd(9%); Westchester County received 58 tpd (2%); and unspecified locations outside the City received2,072 tpd (82%). These intermediate destinations included transfer stations, recycling facilities, anddisposal facilities. By category, 658 tpd (26%) were putrescible waste; 1,336 tpd (53%) were non-putrescible waste; and 536 tpd (21%) were recycling/fill material.

Of the 57,162 tpd of combined commercial and residential (DOS-managed) waste delivered to finaldestinations, 26,198 tpd (46%) remained within the City, and 30,964 (54%) were sent out of the City.Of the waste with in-City destinations, Manhattan received 53 tpd (<1%); the Bronx received 925tpd (4%); Brooklyn received 1,549 tpd (6%); Staten Island received 10,402 tpd (40%); Queensreceived 2,991 tpd (11%); and unspecified locations within the City received 10,278 tpd (39%). Thein-City final destinations included the Fresh Kills Landfill, construction/excavation sites, asphaltplants, waste handlers such as scrap metal dealers and automobile crushers, the Visy paper recyclingfacility, and yard waste composting facilities. By category, 4,461 tpd (17%) were putrescible waste;5,114 tpd (20%) were non-putrescible waste, and 16,623 tpd (63%) was recycling/fill material. SeeTable 8 and Figure 8a.


42

Of the 30,964 tpd of combined commercial and residential (DOS-managed) waste sent to out-of-Cityfinal destinations, Nassau County received 1,915 tpd (6%); Suffolk County received 1,657 tpd (5%);Westchester County received 217 tpd (1%); and unspecified locations outside the City received27,175 tpd (88%). The out-of-City final destinations included landfills and resource recoveryfacilities, construction and excavation sites, and transfer stations (which then presumably sent thewaste to final disposal locations). By category, 15,375 tpd (50%) were putrescible waste; 6,109 tpd(20%) were non-putrescible waste; and 9,480 tpd (30%) were recycling/fill material. See Table 8.

D. Constituents of New York City Total Waste Stream

Putrescible Waste

In Calendar Year 2000, putrescible waste accounted for 20,791 tpd (38%) of the City’s total wastestream. This volume was divided nearly evenly between commercial and residential waste: 9,991tpd (48%) were commercial waste (including excess), and 10,800 tpd (52%) were residential (DOS-managed) waste.

Of the 20,791 tpd of putrescible waste, 4,389 tpd (21%) originated in Manhattan; 3,000 tpd (14%)originated in the Bronx; 4,057 tpd (20%) originated in Brooklyn; 973 tpd (5%) originated in StatenIsland; 3,918 tpd (19%) originated in Queens; 4,239 tpd (20%) originated at unspecified locationswithin the City; and 215 tpd (1%) originated outside the City. See Table 8 and Figure 8b.

DOS and commercial collection trucks delivered the putrescible waste to intermediate destinationsin all boroughs except Manhattan, which has no putrescible waste transfer stations, and out of theCity. In Calendar Year 2000, in-City transfer stations received 12,490 tpd (95%), and out-of-Citytransfer stations received 658 tpd (5%). See Table 7. The Bronx received 4,887 tpd (55%);Brooklyn received 6,908 tpd (39%); Queens received 694 tpd (6%). These intermediate destinationscorrespond to the borough locations of putrescible waste transfer stations (but not to the Staten Islandlocation of the Fresh Kills Landfill, which still received DOS putrescible and non-putrescible wastein Calendar Year 2000, but is considered a final destination).


43

Of the 658 tpd of putrescible waste delivered to out-of-City intermediate destinations, NassauCounty received 13 tpd (2%); Suffolk County received 27 tpd (4%); Westchester County receivedno tonnage; and unspecified locations outside the City received 618 tpd (94%).

The final destinations of the City’s putrescible waste were located in and out of the City. In-Citydestinations received 4,461 tpd (22%), and out-of-City transfer stations and resource recoveryfacilities received 15,375 tpd (78%). See Table 8.and Figure 8c. The Bronx received 1 tpd (<1%);Brooklyn received 379 tpd (8%); Staten Island received 4,019 tpd (90%); and Queens received 62tpd (1%). While the unspecified locations could be the Fresh Kills Landfill, the Brooklyn andQueens destinations result from inconsistent and erroneous reporting by carters and haulers, becauseneither borough had a putrescible waste disposal facility in Calendar Year 2000.

Of the 15,375 tpd of putrescible waste delivered to out-of-City final destinations, Nassau Countyreceived 27 tpd (<1%); Suffolk County also received 27 tpd (<1%); Westchester County received28 tpd (<1%); and unspecified locations outside the City received 15,293 tpd (99%). These finaldestinations included landfills, resource recovery facilities and transfer stations (which thenpresumably sent the waste to final disposal locations) in the metropolitan region and in many states.

Non-putrescible Waste

In Calendar Year 2000, non-putrescible waste accounted for 13,640 tpd (25%) of the City’s totalwaste stream. Only 995 tpd (7%) were residential (DOS-managed) waste, while the rest, 12,645 tpd(93%), was commercial waste (including excess).

Of the 13,640 tpd of non-putrescible waste, 2,660 tpd (20%) originated in Manhattan; 1,965 tpd(15%) originated in the Bronx; 1,831 tpd ( 13%) originated in Brooklyn; 1,628 tpd (12%) originatedin Staten Island; 2,238 tpd (16%) originated in Queens; 2,795 tpd (20%) originated at unspecifiedlocations within the City; and 523 tpd (4%) originated outside the City. See Table 8 and Figure 8b.

DOS and commercial carters and haulers delivered the non-putrescible waste to intermediatedestinations in and out of the City, including transfer stations handling C&D debris, fill material, andrecycling; other waste handlers; construction and excavation sites; and the Fresh Kills Landfill.


44

Most of the non-putrescible waste went to in-City intermediate destinations which received 9,204tpd (87%), while out-of-City intermediate destinations received only 1,336 tpd (13%). See Table7. Manhattan received 4 tpd (<1%); the Bronx received 1,524 tpd (17%); Brooklyn received 4,256tpd (46%); Staten Island received 846 tpd (9%); and Queens received 2,574 tpd (28%). No non-putrescible waste went to unspecified locations within the City.

Of the 1,336 tpd of non-putrescible waste delivered to out-of-City intermediate destinations, NassauCounty received 169 tpd (13%); Suffolk County received 147 tpd (11%); Westchester Countyreceived 58 tpd (4%); and unspecified locations outside the City received 962 tpd (72%).

The final destinations of the City’s non-putrescible waste were divided almost evenly between in-City and out-of-City locations. In-City destinations received 5,114 tpd (46%); out-of-Citydestinations received 6,109 tpd (54%). See Table 8 and Figure 8c. Manhattan received 4 tpd(<1%); the Bronx received 602 tpd (12%); Brooklyn received 964 tpd (19%); Staten Island received1,258 tpd (25%); Queens received 2,224 tpd (43%); and unspecified locations within the Cityreceived 62 tpd (1%). The in-City final destinations of non-putrescible waste included constructionand excavation sites and the Fresh Kills Landfill.

Of the 6,109 tpd of non-putrescible waste delivered to out-of-City final destinations, Nassau Countyreceived 1,057 tpd (17%); Suffolk County received 684 tpd (12%); Westchester County received 89tpd (2%); and unspecified locations outside the City received 4,279 tpd (70%). These finaldestinations included landfills, resource recovery facilities, recycling facilities, construction andexcavation sites, and transfer stations (which then presumably sent the waste to final disposallocations) in the metropolitan region and in many states.

Recycling and Fill Material

In Calendar Year 2000, recycling/fill material accounted for 20,300 tpd (37%) of the City’s totalwaste stream. Of this volume, 13,548 tpd (67%) was commercial waste (including excess), and6,752 tpd (33%) was residential (DOS-managed) waste.


45

Of the 20,300 tpd of recycling/fill material, 1,581 tpd (8%) originated in Manhattan; 1,474 tpd (7%)originated in the Bronx; 1,674 tpd (8%) originated in Brooklyn; 2,214 tpd (10%) originated in StatenIsland; 3,235 tpd (16%) originated in Queens; 10,013 tpd (49%) originated at unspecified locationswithin the City; and 109 tpd (1%) originated outside the City. See Table 8 and Figure 8b.

The flow of recyclables and fill material among waste handlers is the most complex of any wastematerials. After sorting, sifting, and separating, useable and unuseable residue is transported tonumerous, varied facilities and destinations, where it is stored, sent to building material yards orconstruction sites, used in asphalt plants, taken to scrap yards, or transferred yet elsewhere. Thevolume of the material can be converted from tons to cubic yards and from cubic yards to tons atvarious points during the transfer process. The result of these conversions is that the volume ofrecycling/fill material reportedly sent to intermediate and final destinations exceeds the volumereportedly originating in the City. Moreover, almost all of the recycling/fill material went to in-Cityintermediate destinations, which received 21,858 tpd (98%), while out-of-City intermediatedestinations received only 536 tpd (2%). See Table 7. Manhattan received no tonnage; the Bronxreceived 3,310 tpd (15%); Brooklyn received 4,328 tpd (20%); Staten Island received 4,131 tpd(19%); Queens received 7,042 tpd (32%); and unspecified locations within the City received 3,047tpd (14%).

Of the 536 tpd of recycling/fill material delivered to out-of-City intermediate destinations, NassauCounty received 2 tpd (<1%); Suffolk County received 42 tpd (8%); Westchester County receivedno tonnage; and unspecified locations outside the City received 492 tpd (91%).

Of the 26,103 tpd of recycling/fill material delivered to final destinations, 16,623 tpd (64%)remained within the City, and 9,480 (36%) were sent out of the City. Of the waste with in-Citydestinations, Manhattan received 49 tpd (<1%); the Bronx received 322 tpd (2%); Brooklyn received206 tpd (1%); Staten Island received 5,125 tpd (31%); Queens received 705 tpd (4%); andunspecified locations within the City received 10,216 tpd (62%). See Table 8 and Figure 8c. Thein-City final destinations included the Fresh Kills Landfill, construction and excavation sites, asphaltplants, waste handlers such as scrap metal dealers and automobile crushers, the Visy paper recyclingfacility in Staten Island, and yard waste composting facilities.


46

Of the 9,480 tpd of recycling/fill material sent to out-of-City final destinations, Nassau Countyreceived 831 tpd (9%); Suffolk County received 946 tpd (10%); Westchester County received 100tpd (1%); and unspecified locations outside the City received 7,603 tpd (80%). The out-of-City finaldestinations included landfills, construction and excavation sites, waste handlers, manufacturersreusing recycled materials, and other out-of-City transfer stations (which then presumably sent thewaste to final disposal locations).

Appendix ACommercial Waste Study Survey Form

INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY

Given the number of firms to be interviewed, DOS established four interview teams to interview

all operators within four major geographic areas within and around NYC. These four geographic

sectors were Bronx/Queens, Brooklyn/Queens, Northern New York/Connecticut/Long Island,

and Staten Island/New Jersey.

Two teams conducted twenty-two test interviews during a three-day test period on May 9, 10,

and 11, 2001, in the boroughs of Brooklyn and the Bronx. The two teams sought to determine

how the survey would apply to the different waste handlers interviewed and if the initial project

schedule could realistically apply to the required task. DOS made changes to the interview form

according to comments received at the kick-off meeting and as a result of the experience gained

during the test interview period. Suggestions to improve the test interview process included that

the amount of waste collected should be listed in either tons or cubic yards on the interview

form. The team made these changes to reflect issues encountered during the preliminary test

interviews.

The weekly schedule required that approximately 100 letters and preliminary interview forms per

week be sent out on each Monday for eight consecutive weeks. The letters and interview forms,

sent out one-and-a-half weeks in advance of the interview, allowed adequate preparation by each

interviewee. The letter presented a preview of the information that would be expected in the

interview and provided a list of three days on which the interview would be conducted.

The day before the interviews, team leaders attempted to contact the firms to be interviewed to

confirm the team’s intent to visit the site the following day and, if possible, set a specific time. If

the team leader was unable to contact the company due to a missing/incorrect number or

unreachable by phone, the team leader visited the firm unannounced.

The interviews allowed an opportunity for the waste handlers to provide clarification of the

information filled out on the preliminary interview forms. In addition, the interviewers had the

opportunity to ensure that the surveys were properly filled out. The project coordinator reviewed

the completed interview surveys with team leaders every week. Reviewing the work on a

weekly basis ensured that the information collected was accurate and complete. In addition,

clarifications could be made to the information collected during the interviews. This step helped

to eliminate any unnecessary confusion that the database administrator would encounter when

inputting the collected data into the database.

DOS assumed that some firms would not be contacted during the interview process due to

incorrect addresses or telephone numbers, company relocation, a change of name, or absorption

by another company. To allow for the required completion time, DOS reserved an additional

two and a half week period for make-up interviews. The make-up interviews included those

companies that were unable to meet due to scheduling conflicts or those that were unreachable

for an interview. The project coordinator sought current, accurate information for those

companies that could not be contacted by telephone or whose address seemed incorrect after a

site visit. DOS contacted and interviewed these companies only if updated information was

found for them. The presence of the DOS or TWC officer convinced most carters to cooperate

with the interviewer.

Appendix BTransfer Station Profiles